4 ms·
One person's specific usage of AI, in a specific game, where the AI was constrained to only coming up with words that have an associated emoji, is not a referen
by csallen 3y ago
One person's specific usage of AI, in a specific game, where the AI was constrained to only coming up with words that have an associated emoji, is not a referendum on whether or not AI itself has common sense. That's like saying paint is boring because someone made a crappy painting, or code is limited because someone made an app you don't like.
- deely3 3y agoSure, its not a referendum, but its a prominent sign that even with this task AI can fail spectacularly. P.S. Today I learned from AI that Sphinx + Drunk = Sphinxter.
- lanternfish 3y agoThat's a sick pun though - I'd definitely consider that a success
- thatguysaguy 3y agoWhat would the right answer be?
- deely3 3y agoRiddler, drunk game, no answer.
- smfjaw 3y agoMy computer programs always crashed in my first year of college, clear sign computers fail spectacularly
- halfmatthalfcat 3y agoDid you tout your first year college programs as world changing and potentially a risk to the species because it's so intelligent/has awesome powers?
- csallen 3y agoIs the author of this game doing that?
- gloosx 3y ago>where the AI was constrained to only coming up with words that have an associated emoji Sorry but clearly the game description is about joining two things together into a logical craft and AI is contrained with that – not coming up with random words that have an associated emoji. In doing so the AI is not convincing, the combinations just feel random. And yes, you need common sense to come up with logical combinations which makes a game like this interesting in the first place.